D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE present two Special Civil Applications have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the action of the Authorities of the Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad of inspection, detaining and seizure of goods and books of accounts of the two petitioner concerns and thereupon levy and recovery of octroi duty on such goods has been challenged.

( 2 ) THE petitioners also challenge the constitutional validity of the Octroi Rules and the Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (herein after in short referred to as `the Act, the Rules and the Standing Orders respectively ).

( 3 ) THE brief facts in the two cases before us leading to the challenge to the alleged coercive recovery of octroi from the petitioner need to be stated.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, Swastik Steel Suppliers in S. C. A. No. 235 of 1986, is a partnership firm engaged in the business of dealing in iron and steel materials. It is admitted that the firm has maintained a godown in which goods purchased locally and imported from outside the City of Ahmedabad are stored. On 25-51984, the Officers of the Octroi Department of the Corporation made a surprise visit to the business premises of the concern and demanded for inspection of books of accounts, ledger and registers regarding sale and purchases for the years Samvat 2037 - 2040. According to the petitioner on the insistence of the Officers, who conducted raid, accounts books and import bills were made available for inspection. The Officers, then, on the spot made a demand of a sum of Rs. 60,000. 00 as octroi duties on purchases made by the concern. Despite the protest of the petitioner against the seizure of books of accounts, a sum of Rs. 60,000. 00 was forcibly recovered from the petitioner. After the alleged raid and recovery of the octroi duty in the sum of Rs. 60,000. 00, under the so called document, bill-cum-receipt (Annexure A), the petitioner was served with notices dated 29-5-1984 demanding proof of due payment of octroi duty on transactions between the Samvat years 2037 and 2040. The above letter was followed by demand of estimated octroi in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The petitioner protested against the demand of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and demanded information and basis of such a demand. Request was also made for return of the books of accounts, so that necessary information might be supplied. The petitioner was then served with five requisition notices under Rule 11 of the Octroi Rules for the transactions for different periods of the years 1981-82 and 1983-84. To the above mentioned requisition notices, the petitioner submitted a written reply lodging his protest against the illegal recovery of octroi and his inability to supply the necessary information pursuant to the requisition notices for want of files and books of accounts.

( 5 ) THE second petitioner in the connected case, S. C. A. No. 181 of 1985, Mahendra Tube Suppliers is also a partnership firm dealing in ERW tubes and other similar articles. The case of this concern is that it maintains two godowns, one outside the limits of Ahmedabad and the other within the limits in its business premises. On 21-12-1984, the members of the staff of the Octroi Department of the Corporation intercepted two hand carts loaded with ERW goods belonging to the petitioner firm. The carriers of the two hand carts failed to pay on demand the octroi duty at the Haldervas Octroi Naka. The petitioners representative then approached the Octroi Authorities and was willing to pay octroi duty in the sum of Rs. 672. 00 @ 4% advalorem for 2400 kgs. of material valued at Rs. 16,800/ -. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount offered towards octroi duty was not accepted and the goods were illegally detained. The Officers of the Corporation then went for inspection to the godown of the petitioner in Archna Estate, where one Clerk Amrish Parikh of the firm was present. He was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document